a. An ethnic, racial, religious, or other group having a distinctive presence within a society. b. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society.

People with certain eye color or a proclivity to being fat aren't necessarily a "group" - they don't really group together, and don't consider themselves a subculture. It is different with gay people - they are indeed a distinct group, and are a subculture in many regards.

And while you could make an argument that people with green eyes do not have significant social power, they also have not really sought it and are not denied rights on the basis that they have green eyes. Again, this is different than gays.

And I still want to hear your definition for what a minority is.

Notice that being a distinctive group is sociological and not at all biological? Your definition just proved my point.

that's preposterous. are you then saying that a black person who has no contact with other black people isn't considered part of a minority group?

a. An ethnic, racial, religious, or other group having a distinctive presence within a society. b. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society.

People with certain eye color or a proclivity to being fat aren't necessarily a "group" - they don't really group together, and don't consider themselves a subculture. It is different with gay people - they are indeed a distinct group, and are a subculture in many regards.

And while you could make an argument that people with green eyes do not have significant social power, they also have not really sought it and are not denied rights on the basis that they have green eyes. Again, this is different than gays.

And I still want to hear your definition for what a minority is.

Notice that being a distinctive group is sociological and not at all biological? Your definition just proved my point.

that's preposterous. are you then saying that a black person who has no contact with other black people isn't considered part of a minority group?

You misunderstand the difference between correlation and causation, I'm afraid. Biology may be the origin of a few forms of minority status, but it's not the cause of minority status in the least.

why are you being so obtuse?

nobody has said that biology, by itself, CAUSES minority status in the way we're talking about minority status here. duh. implicit in the context in which minority status has been discussed in this thread is the idea that one group is unjustly designated by some other group (usually a majority) as a target for persecution, ridicule, and, generally speaking, a denial of both rights and opportunities. as such, gay people clearly fit the profile of a minority community, while people with green eyes don't.

of course, you're free to believe that homosexuality is not a biological conferred trait. whatever. but don't you find it hard to believe that otherwise conscientious people would actively choose to put themselves in such a disadvantageous position by openly admitting they are gay?

I contended that homosexuality wasn't grounds for minority status. Another poster opposite my point of view said that homosexuality was biological - I said that whether or not it was biological was irrelevant. Hence the post you referenced.

Being a minority has nothing to do(intrinsically) with being oppressed. All it means is being some how socially separated and outnumbered. I'm convinced that gay people face bigotry. I'm not convinced that it renders them in the same train of thought as African Americans, Latinos, women, Irish immigrants in the 19th century(although this seems all but gone, just mentioning), and so on. At the very least, I'm not convinced that they should receive the same policies.

Logged

Jet

of course gays are a minority group. theyre a group that makes up less than 10% of the population, with common interests and a sub-culture (unlike left-handed or green-eyed people), who tend to be ostracized by many members of the majority.

however, we dont get a boost (unless its a very small one) in law school admissions because gays dont seem to be underrepresented in the law school environment.

I contended that homosexuality wasn't grounds for minority status. Another poster opposite my point of view said that homosexuality was biological - I said that whether or not it was biological was irrelevant. Hence the post you referenced.

Being a minority has nothing to do(intrinsically) with being oppressed. All it means is being some how socially separated and outnumbered. I'm convinced that gay people face bigotry. I'm not convinced that it renders them in the same train of thought as African Americans, Latinos, women, Irish immigrants in the 19th century(although this seems all but gone, just mentioning), and so on. At the very least, I'm not convinced that they should receive the same policies.

then, as a minority group, what distinguishes gay people from "African Americans, Latinos, women, Irish immigrants in the 19th century"? (beyond the obvious, of course.)

Logged

NathanB

PerfectSoldier, I have asked this a couple of times. I'm not trying to be rude, I'd just like to know what your definition of a minority is... I can't figure out from what you have said if anyone qualifies as a minority.

I contended that homosexuality wasn't grounds for minority status. Another poster opposite my point of view said that homosexuality was biological - I said that whether or not it was biological was irrelevant. Hence the post you referenced.

Being a minority has nothing to do(intrinsically) with being oppressed. All it means is being some how socially separated and outnumbered. I'm convinced that gay people face bigotry. I'm not convinced that it renders them in the same train of thought as African Americans, Latinos, women, Irish immigrants in the 19th century(although this seems all but gone, just mentioning), and so on. At the very least, I'm not convinced that they should receive the same policies.

then, as a minority group, what distinguishes gay people from "African Americans, Latinos, women, Irish immigrants in the 19th century"? (beyond the obvious, of course.)

I think it really just comes down to an issue of the argument/story you make to the adcomm...

When it comes to groups being historically and continually discriminated upon in this country, racial minority groups are the one of the largest to face this type of adversity (aside from women). This is not to say that GLBT folks are not excluded from discrimination - many experience unfair intolerance in many forms similar as well as unique to those experienced by racial minorities.

The difference is that a Latino, black, or Asian person doesn't even have to speak, and they can face discrimination simply from being judged upon by their biologically set appearance. A gay person does not just walk into a room with "Hi, I'm Gay" tattooed all over their skin. Yes, people are going to try and debate this by being able to say "well you can just tell", for example by talking to Carson from Queer Eye or if you were to perhaps meet RuPaul. But that's not necessarily true, considering that you could meet Portia de Rossi or Karamo (from The Real World - Phili) and never have "known" they were gay unless a) they told you or b) you have stellar gay-dar. The point is that being gay isn't going to outright classify you as a minority, since it's not a VISIBLE biological feature upon which one may experience discrimination.

If you are gay, and show how that has affected your life, and any limitations you have faced and perhaps how this has shaped your interest in studying law or wanting to serve as a legal advocate for the GLBT community, I think you could classify yourself as a minority...not only are you showing the effects of your sexual orientation, but you would be able to show that you are someone who offers diversity of thought and life experience, and this is important as adcomms organize the composition of the classroom. But just the same way for ethnic minorities, it's not going to be a box you simply check off for brownie points- you're going to have to show how this "status" is significant to you as an applicant.

The difference is that a Latino, black, or Asian person doesn't even have to speak, and they can face discrimination simply from being judged upon by their biologically set appearance. A gay person does not just walk into a room with "Hi, I'm Gay" tattooed all over their skin. Yes, people are going to try and debate this by being able to say "well you can just tell", for example by talking to Carson from Queer Eye or if you were to perhaps meet RuPaul. But that's not necessarily true, considering that you could meet Portia de Rossi or Karamo (from The Real World - Phili) and never have "known" they were gay unless a) they told you or b) you have stellar gay-dar. The point is that being gay isn't going to outright classify you as a minority, since it's not a VISIBLE biological feature upon which one may experience discrimination.

i'll grant that determing whether someone is gay simply by looking at him isn't always easy. but limiting the analysis to only visual cues is awfully simplistic. if what you're implying is that gay people can escape discrimination simply by avoiding flamboyance and otherwise appearing mainstream, then i'd contend that that, in itself, is repressive. if, to afford myself the kinds of opportunities available to straight people, i feel compelled to remain silent about my partner and our life the way a heterosexual doesn't have to when he speaks about his spouse and family, then aren't i then being censored? and isn't that unacceptable?